[2025] KEHC 4356 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 4356 (KLR)

The court found that although there had been a delay of about three years since the last court attendance, the Plaintiffs had provided some explanation for the delay, including the 2nd Plaintiff's illness and ongoing settlement discussions. The court emphasized the importance of balancing the need for expeditious...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 4356 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Samo Security Limited; Plaintiff: Omurembe Iyadi; Defendant: SBM Bank Kenya Limited (Formerly Chase Bank Kenya Limited)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 244 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application for dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed
Judges
BK Njoroge
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Case Management, Delay in Prosecution, Expeditious Trial
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Case Management Delay in Prosecution Expeditious Trial

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samo Security Limited

Plaintiff

Omurembe Iyadi

Plaintiff

SBM Bank Kenya Limited (Formerly Chase Bank Kenya Limited)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay by the Plaintiffs.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiffs have provided sufficient cause for the delay in prosecuting the suit.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require the matter to be heard on its merits despite the delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although there had been a delay of about three years since the last court attendance, the Plaintiffs had provided some explanation for the delay, including the 2nd Plaintiff's illness and ongoing settlement discussions. The court emphasized the importance of balancing the need for expeditious disposal of cases with the right of parties to be heard. The court was not satisfied that the delay was so inordinate or inexcusable as to warrant dismissal of the suit at this stage. Instead, the court opted to fast-track the hearing and directed the Plaintiffs to complete all pre-trial steps and secure a hearing date within ninety days. The application for dismissal was...

Court Disposition

application for dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 20th September, 2024 is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
  • The Plaintiffs are to complete any pending pre-trial issues, case management and ensure that the matter is assigned a hearing date within the next ninety (90) days.